Actually, the multiverse is cheerfully beyond falsifiability

_{Denyse O'Leary

January 20, 2018

Intelligent Design, Multiverse, Philosophy, Science}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

File:Soapbubbles1b.jpg — soap bubbles/Timothy Pilgrim

From math prof Peter Woit at Not Even Wrong:

Sean Carroll has a new paper out defending the Multiverse and attacking the naive Popperazi, entitled Beyond Falsifiability: Normal Science in a Multiverse. He also has a Beyond Falsifiability blog post here.

Much of the problem with the paper and blog post is that Carroll is arguing against a straw man, while ignoring the serious arguments about the problems with multiverse research.

…

the problem with the multiverse is that it’s an empty idea, predicting nothing. It is functioning not as what we would like from science, a testable explanation, but as an untestable excuse for not being able to predict anything. In defense of empty multiverse theorizing, Carroll wants to downplay the role of any conventional testability criterion in our understanding of what is science and what isn’t.More.

Downplaying testability is the whole point of postmodernism. Who is to judge?

And the multiverse is postmodern physics. Wait till it meets up with postmodern (algebra is racist) math.

See also: The multiverse is science’s assisted suicide

Comments

CR:
You have confused being off limits for consideration and having been considered and failing to refute Darwinism.
Are you kidding? A-Mats don't need us for that. They are doing it all by themselves. Just ask Larry Moran whether Darwinism (defined as a predominately adaptationist process) has been refuted. He will tell you yes it has.Barry Arrington_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
03:01 PM
3
03
01
PM
PDT}

CR You have confused being off limits for consideration and having been considered and failing to refute Darwinism. No, I'm saying when someone in academia loses his job (or is told to shut up) for attempting to advance a new theory, then it is fair to say the theory is off limits. ID summed up simply: 1. Designed objects exist in nature (true, undeniable) 2. Designed objects have characteristics that can be objectively determined (again, silly to deny.) 3. The objective characteristics of designed objects are IC, CSI, pick something else. (Fire away, Feel free to refute. Have seen attempts, haven't seen knockouts). 4. Biological organisms (and other naturally occurring things) have the objective characteristics of designed items. (Again feel free to refute). The point is that unlike critics of the multiverse (or The Big Bang for that matter), the rebuttals to ID are rarely objective and never conclusive.tribune7_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT}

@Tribune7
S: No ideas should be off-limits to science. T: Except ID, of course.
You have confused being off limits for consideration and having been considered and failing to refute Darwinism. Example? See my challenge above. How does ID explain the specific order of organisms we observe? Give us something to concider! If ID somehow manages to equally explain not only what neo-Darwinism does today, but then explains the problematic aspects of the theory, then by all means, it will considered. But, until then, you’ll have to excuse us for not thinking “That’s just what the designer must have wanted” represents anything remotely like that.critical rationalist_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
09:42 AM
9
09
42
AM
PDT}

While a theory being testable is key factor, testable theories are common. Anyone can come up with a testable theory, so they are a dime a dozen. What we need are good explanations, which are very hard to come by. For example, can any ID proponent here explanation why ID would predict organisms would appear in the order of least complex to most complex? It’s unclear how ID predictions are unique, given that its designer is defined as abstract and has no defined limitations and given our current, best test theories about how knowledge grows, including in the case of human designers. Let me guess: “that’s just what the designer must have wanted”? In fact, I challenge anyone to come up with anything better than the above that would actually hold up, if we try to take it seriously, for the purpose of criticism. I won’t be holding my breath.critical rationalist_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
09:27 AM
9
09
27
AM
PDT}

BA77, When atheists have faith/ideological commitments they dress them up in lab coats. KFkairosfocus_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
03:15 AM
3
03
15
AM
PDT}

Atheists have no compelling evidence for all the various parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth. In fact, as is shown in the following video, there is fairly strong evidence that can be mustered against their claims for parallel universes and/or multiverses,,
Multiverse Mania vs Reality - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQJV4fH6kMo
And whereas, atheists have no compelling evidence for the various parallel universe and/or multiverse scenarios that they have put forth, Christians, on the other hand, can appeal directly to the higher dimensional mathematics, and evidence, behind Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity and General Relativity to support their belief that God upholds this universe in its continual existence, as well as to support their belief in a heavenly dimension and in a hellish dimension.
Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gKggH8jO0pk Paper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nRZECqs8Iqeqv0GzP5lV6et_K9_rYrz06Tchoa4U0Rw/edit
bornagain77_{January 21, 2018
January
01
Jan
21
21
2018
01:58 AM
1
01
58
AM
PDT}

It's just that it’s difficult to theorize any intrinsic natural process that could cause our universe to simply pop into existence out of nothing 13.8 billion years ago. In other words, it addresses the problem of how the universe (time, space, mass, energy, etc.) could cause itself to come into existence from non-existence. Notice that quantum fluctuations aren't the solution, since they require TIME for probability to exist. Thus, Physicist Andrei Linde speculated that our universe is just one of many “bubbles” that spontaneously appeared as part of a natural "multiverse" with miraculous abilities and eternal existence. The multiverse idea brings us full circle with our ancestral myth makers. Logically, it's no different than postulating the existence of a Giant Cosmic Turtle that lays eggs which become new universes! His speculation is not testable or scientific, but it does get skeptics out of an ideological jam. In other words, God didn't do it, but Nature somehow musta. -QQuerius_{January 20, 2018
January
01
Jan
20
20
2018
08:18 PM
8
08
18
PM
PDT}

They sure are spending a lot of time and money on this unfalsifiable idea.clehrhoff_{January 20, 2018
January
01
Jan
20
20
2018
06:53 PM
6
06
53
PM
PDT}

No ideas should be off-limits to science. Except ID, of course.tribune7_{January 20, 2018
January
01
Jan
20
20
2018
03:26 PM
3
03
26
PM
PDT}

Seversky, the question is, is it a scientific study or highly mathematical philosophy that by wearing the lab coat locks out other significant options. KFkairosfocus_{January 20, 2018
January
01
Jan
20
20
2018
02:57 PM
2
02
57
PM
PDT}

The multiverse seems to be more like a mathematical conjecture. Nobody, not even its proponents, seems to think it is testable by current science so that is all it can be for the present. Does that mean it should not be pursued as far as it can? No, of course not. No ideas should be off-limits to science. Maybe it is a dead-end but maybe in the context of some future discovery it will lead to a great breakthrough. We don't know but "don't know" is not a reason to give up.Seversky_{January 20, 2018
January
01
Jan
20
20
2018
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply